Motion To Compel Production Of Statement

STATE OF _____________

IN THE ____________ COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF _____________

Case No: _____________

Hon. __________________

_____________________,

Plaintiffs

v.

_____________________,

Defendant.

By: ______________________

Attorney for Plaintiffs

By: ______________________

Attorney for Defendant

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF STATEMENT

NOW COME Plaintiffs, _____________________, by and through their attorneys, ______________________, and for their Motion to Compel Production of Witness Statements state as follows:

1. That this cause of action arises out of serious and permanent physical injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs on or about [date] in an automobile accident with the Defendant.

2. That Defendant's Answers to Interrogatories which indicate that Defendant's counsel has in his possession statements taken of Defendant that were given soon after the accident.

3. That Defendant's counsel has not voluntarily produced said statements to Plaintiff's counsel.

4. That Defendant's refusal to provide Plaintiff's counsel with these statements is impeding the discovery process in this case. These witness statements are not subject to any privilege (whether work product or attorney/client), and are necessary for the preparation of Plaintiff's case for trial, and are admissible at trial as impeachment evidence on cross examination, and are without question within the liberal scope of discovery permitted by [Rule].

5. That further, well settled Michigan Appellate case law exists regarding the discovery of statements or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. These decisions clearly state that an opposing party is entitled to the production of investigative materials under the discovery rules. No extraordinary showing of good cause is required. The statements are simply discoverable upon service of a request to produce pursuant to the court rule. See Lynd v. Chocolay Township, 153 Mich App 188 (1986); Peters v Gaggos, 72 Mich App 138 (1976).

6. That even if the statements are deemed attorney work product and subject to the restrictions of [Rule], Plaintiffs are still entitled, because the Plaintiffs have a substantial need for said materials and are unable to produce these materials without undue hardship. More specifically, the Defendant is now contesting negligence and his statements soon after the motor vehicle accident will be enlightening with regards to whether or not his story has changed since being appointed an...